A longitudinal study on nodding syndrome—a new African epilepsy disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Nodding syndrome (NS), a new epilepsy disorder of sub-Saharan Africa, has only recently been classified. In a study conducted in southern Tanzania in 2005, 62 patients with NS were analyzed in great detail. The present study, a follow-up investigation, was conducted to evaluate the progression of NS over time and to obtain serial electroencephalography (EEG) data. METHODS: Of the 62 NS patients, 53 (85.5%), the majority of whom were currently on some form of antiepileptic treatment, could be reevaluated in 2009 with a standardized questionnaire. A subset of these patients (25/53) underwent EEG investigation. RESULTS: In patients with "head nodding (HN) only" in 2005, 10 (43.5%) of 23 remained with the same diagnosis, whereas 5 (21.7%) of 23 had developed "HN plus" (i.e., HN and generalized tonic-clonic seizures). Six patients (26.1%) had seizures other than HN only, and two patients (8.7%) had fully recovered. In the "HN plus" group of 2005, 9 (30.0%) of 30 patients remained "HN plus," and 15 patients (50.0%) had seizures other than HN only. Four patients (13.3%) reverted to "HN only," and two patients (6.7%) stopped all seizures. In 11 (44.0%) of 25 patients, electroencephalography (EEG) showed generalized slowing. Six (54.6%) of these 11 abnormal EEG studies further showed generalized epileptiform discharges: (1) ictal electroencephalographic pattern with generalized 2.5 Hz spike and waves in two patients and (2) interictal bursts of 1.5-2 Hz spike and waves in four patients. SIGNIFICANCE: This follow-up study confirms that HN represents an epilepsy disorder, possibly of the atypical absence type with dynamic development over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".